Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

Template:Bangladesh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, and possibly redirect to Bangladesh topics. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladesh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with no clear purpose. Only prior use was [1] J36miles (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to {{WikiProject Bangladesh}} 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but my redirect suggestion is {{Bangladesh topics}}. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:School in Dinajpur Education Board

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:School in Dinajpur Education Board (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused - does not seem to be usable. MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor practice to categorize articles this way. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Shin Megami Tensei characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shin Megami Tensei characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substantial duplicate of Template:Megami Tensei series; rarely updated; additionally, not all articles link to characters articles. Izno (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox African Movie Academy Awards

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox African Movie Academy Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox AACTA Film Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Australian Film Institute Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

these templates are basically one-off copies of template:Infobox Academy Awards. I attempted to merge them into a single template, template:infobox film awards, but this was resisted, so I am bringing the discussion here. There are almost certainly more that could be merged, but I thought I would start with these ~~two~~ four, since they each have less than a dozen transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose

Wanting to delete or merge a infobox template just because it is similar to another existing infobox template, is not a strong Tfd nomination rationale.
Unlike other awards, the African Movie Academy Award (AMAA) is a continental award comprising of approximately 54 African countries / 54 African cinemas, including Nollywood, the second largest film industry in the world, ahead of Hollywood and behind the Indian film industry. Filmmakers, filmproducers, actresses, actors and other professionals in the film industry from all 54 countries in Africa are eligible for participation, with films in all languages. Thusly, in my opinion this large scope has qualified AMAA for an individual film award infobox template.
There are some indicators which suggest biased editing. On her/his talk page, the nominatinig editor states that s/he wants "to merge all the forks". Incidentally, s/he chose only the AMAA infobox template for her/his merge intention, and left all the others intact. I'm curious: the editor wants Template:Infobox African Movie Academy Awards to be merged into Template:Infobox film awards (a previously deleted template), and at the same time s/he has defined Template:Infobox African Movie Academy Awards to be a fork/mirror of Template:Infobox Academy Awards. So how come s/he hasn't included Template:Infobox Academy Awards in her/his quest for merging film award templates? S/he is not being consistent here. It is evident that the editor does not want to touch Template:Infobox Academy Awards. This, to me, looks like an indication of biased editing, whereby US American and West European film award templates are left as they are, and non-US and non-European film award templates are taken to Tfd.
Lastly, the nominating editor moved the infobox template without first seeking community consensus & without sending the template to Tfd. This is not proper form, and has little to do with being bold. The template was moved to a template which had already been deleted in 2006 via TfD. Amsaim (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. In addition, your second point bears little relevance: if the infoboxes are very similar, a merge may be beneficial, requiring less maintenance than many individual templates; it doesn't matter how big each film industry is.

In response to your third point, I think the nominator is trying to make a start by upmerging the less-used templates first, which is an easier task. Not bias, just pragmatism. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Although I agree that the templates are all similar to the Academy Awards infobox, I do think having individual ones with their own colour schemes will help with identifying each individual Academy's awards. If having individual infoboxes is going to destroy Wikipedia as we know it then I can agree with the merger, but otherwise whats the problem? DonEd (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with forks is they are forky... that is they diverge over time. They pick up different field names, layout, conventions. This means inconsistent look and feel, and more cognitive load for editors. As far as colour schemes are concerned these work best if they are coordinated, take a look at {{Infobox album}}'s colour scheme for different genres. (Incidentally the entire scheme was changed a few years back, imagine the complexity if there was {{Infobox retro-punk album}}.) Although I'm not sure that I would look at a page entitled "Foo Awards 1997" and only recognise that it was about Foo Awards because the infobox used just the right shade of yellowy-blue. But it is a balancing act between overly merging and creating very complex templates, and over forking and creating too many - with a little leeway provided by using templates as wrappers for other templates (although this creates a maintenance task of its own). Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Support merging, or at the very least, use the {{Infobox film awards}} as a base template for the rest. As Rich says, we shouldn't fork templates just to have a new colour scheme, and it looks like the {{Infobox film awards}} template (as well as the others) all support setting the colour. We could easily add a 'type' parameter to {{Infobox film awards}} which would automatically change the colouring and the label links for specific awards, much in the same way that the colouring is set in {{Infobox album}} and {{Navbox musical artist}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One cannot but wonder why the nominating editor picked just these templates and sent them to Tfd? The film award templates found here are all the same. If you are for merging the nominated templates, then the same must be done to all the others, including Template:Infobox Academy Awards. Amsaim (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am pretty sure all the supporters will agree that as many as possible (i.e. all) of the film awards should be merged. Since most of them are derived from the Academy Award box, it should be simpler. As This that and the other says, choosing the order is a pragmatic matter. (A huge project once was de-railed because of the wrong order.) Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Support merging Why are these separate? It sounds like {{Infobox film awards}} can handle these just fine. --N Y Kevin @905, i.e. 20:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Pointlessly redundant templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Medium. I like Plastikspork's idea of adding a type parameter to the infobox to change the colour scheme. If we can have something like that then I am for it! DonEd (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary colour bands do not benefit the encyclopedia: regular readers should not and cannot be expected to understand that a different colour band implies a different type of award. Just merge them and leave the "type" parameter off entirely. I've yet to see any compelling arguments to the contrary. If merging the Oscars infobox is doable then that should certainly be done as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think colour can benefit an article. Look at the Sex and the City article, for example. I think the colour used on that infobox matches the subject, and the colour is something that a user (well me anyway) can use to identify the article with. I know this isn't "Artypedia" but I think colours really brighten up an article and gives it a nice touch. Seeing as Wikipedia isn't a traditional kind of encyclopaedia (where anyone can edit articles), then I really don't see why colours should be a problem. DonEd (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.